Mr Needham,
In January 2007 the CMC "accepted" an "independent" investigation into my complaint about workplace abuse.
I have just been allowed to read a few pages of the "independent" investigation report.
I emailed a letter to you on 23 October 2008 at 10:37 PM.
The letter contained some recommendations based on my experience of workplace abuse.
I am concerned that a junior CMC officer will simply file the letter without reading it "as instructed by senior officers".
I have decided to publish part of the letter here in the hope that you will read it.
Recommendations:
The Queensland government have a responsibility to ensure that Queensland teachers are safe at work.
If the CMC do not have the resources to investigate the systemic corruption of the Education Queensland Grievance investigation process, the CMC Chairman has a responsibility to make this known to the Queensland State Premier, and to ask for sufficient funding to protect Queensland teachers effectively.
The CMC practice of allowing Education Queensland officers to investigate themselves is not working.
It must be possible for a Queensland teacher to prove themselves innocent of an allegation.
If it is not, if there really is no hope of justice for a Queensland teacher, then the CMC / Education Queensland investigation process is corrupt.
Documentation
Education Queensland documention is of an appalling standard.
There is an urgent need for Education Queensland to develop documentation systems that are of a professional standard.
This appalling standard of documentation facilitates workplace abuse.
Verifact records are of a far, far higher standard. They use an "investigation running sheet" which details a series of actions. The CMC use a similar system.
There is an urgent need for Education Queensland officers to adopt an "incident running sheet" that clearly explains their series of actions or decisions.
There is a need to develop an "incident report" form on which a principal can record any allegation against a teacher. The form should contain space for the teacher's response.
There should be serious consequences for any principal who places a "record" secretly on a teacher's file without allowing the teacher to respond to the allegations in writing.
This behaviour should be clearly identified as workplace abuse.
There is an urgent need to protect teachers from imaginary or malicious allegations.
It is much too easy for a malicious or mentally disturbed principal to claim to have "heard" a confidential allegation against a teacher and to place the "records" of these imaginary "confidential disclosures" secretly on a teacher's official record.
The allegation should be provided to the teacher in writing.
The allegation should be clearly stated. It should consist of more than the principal's vague "concerns".
The allegation should contain specific facts that provide the teacher with the opportunity to respond effectively.
The teacher must have the opportunity to prove themselves innocent.
The teacher should be allowed to respond to the allegations in writing.
Because at the moment allegations can be continually changed. It is impossible for a teacher to respond to an allegation effectively and to prove herself innocent of an allegation when the allegation is being continually changed in this manner.
For example:
On 27 November 2000, GR, acting principal of Lynch-Mob State School stated that-
Allegation ( A )
My "old principal" had agreed that I should be on Diminished Work Performance.
I responded to this allegation.
But, in July 2004, when I received a copy of the secret meeting notes written by AL, acting deputy principal of Lynch-Mob State School, I discovered for the first time that my "old principal" had been falsified out of AL's meeting notes.
In AL's secret meeting notes I discovered-
Allegation ( B )
"GR, acting principal of Lynch-Mob State School, then stated that the principal of Annie's other school shares her concerns".
And my response to the first allegation had been "edited out"of AL's secret "official record" of the meeting.
And I discovered that GR had claimed in several of the secret 2469 F "records" that the principal of my "other" school had expressed concerns about my work-
" the next day (i.e. 5 October 2000) ... I spoke to (name of principal of my other school) who appeared to be experiencing very similar problems when constructive suggestions are offered."
2469 F document 82, number at top right hand side of page.
and again, six weeks later
"Confirmed with (name of my other school) that they shared similar performance concerns."
Handwritten on 2469 F document 36, signed by acting principal GR and dated 23 November 2000.
So, in 2004, I responded to this second version of the allegation.
And in late 2004 the principal of my "other school" told Infocomm officers that she had not discussed me with acting principal GR.
So, in May 2006, usual principal EL claimed for the first time that-
Allegation ( C )
He was the "other principal" who had "noticed this problem"!
And this third version of the allegation was "accepted" by Education Queensland and the CMC!
And it was concealed from me till June 2008.
Education Queensland and the CMC have refused to allow me the opportunity to respond to this new allegation.
Because they consider the investigation "finalised".
So I can only respond to this third version of the allegation on my website:
http://www.badapplebullies.com/theallegations.htm
Policies
Queensland teachers who have been bullied must be involved in the development of new, effective anti-bullying policies.
Because, although Education Queensland claim to have written new anti-bullying policies, the new policies seem to have been written by the officers who were involved in the bullying and / or mobbing.
Or in "not knowing about" the bullying and / or mobbing.
You can't deal with bullying if you "can't find any evidence of bullying".
These officers seem to have no motivation to stop the bullying.
And the "new policies" seem to be based on the findings of investigations that were "set up" to find no evidence of abuse.
So the new policies are not effective.
One of the most shocking findings of the Verifact investigation was that acting principal GR, acting deputy principal AL and usual principal EL had developed no insight into their abuse.
None of them expressed any remorse.
Which suggests that the new anti-bullying policies developed by Education Queensland since 2000 have failed to raise their awareness of workplace abuse, and that these administrators will continue to abuse classroom teachers.
Education Queensland administrators must follow Education Queensland policies.
This is not happening.
Example A.
The Diminished Work Performance Policy clearly states-
3.6 The principal should verify that there is substance to any complaint against a teacher prior to initiating a diminished work performance process.
The principal must inform the teacher of any complaint and provide a copy of the complaiant's written statement. ...
Usual principal EL had highlighted these words ( 2469 F document 97).
But he, acting principal GR and acting deputy principal AL all ignored this policy.
There is a need to make Education Queensland policies known and readily available to staff.
Education Queensland policies are not known by Education Queensland staff.
They are not readily available to staff.
Example A)
Acting principal GR and acting deputy principal AL had agreed to keep secret "records" on me within a few days of taking up their acting positions.
This was a breach of Education Queensland polices.
Either GR and AL did not know that this was a breach of Education Queensland polices, or they deliberately ignored the official Education Queensland policies.
In 2006, five and a half years later, they both still seemed to be unaware that their behaviour was in breach of Education Queensland policies.
Example B)
AL did not seem to realise that I had the right to Natural Justice - the right to respond to GR's allegations.
She edited my responses out of her notes of the "mediated" meeting on 27 November 2000, repeatedly describing my responses as "arguing the point".
I myself knew nothing at all about the DWP and Grievance policies in November 2000, and I had great difficulty in obtaining copies of these policies.
Training
Education Queensland employees should be required to demonstrate knowledge and understanding of Education Queensland policies before they are appointed to "acting" positions.
An inexperienced "acting" principal or deputy principal who has no knowledge of departmental policies puts classroom teachers at risk of workplace abuse.
Acting principal GR's total knowledge of the Diminished Work Perfomance process seems to have been contained on one sticky-note.
2421 File F document 60.
In addition to my basic three-year training as a teacher, I had spent eight years studying in the evenings to complete two good education degrees
For Education Queensland to have exposed me to an administrator with such limited skills was negligent.
The senior officer who gave GR the basic advice on this sticky-note must have known that GR's knowledge of the DWP policy was very limited.
But nothing was done to protect me from GR's abuse of her powers.
This was also negligent.
All Queensland classroom teachers should be encouraged to familiarise themselves with Education Queensland policies, and to undertake impartial written tests on their understanding of these polices.
This should be seen as a Health and Safety issue, and as necessary preparation for "acting" positions.
Such a test would simultaneously evaluate a promotion applicant's reading, writing and thinking skills.
Promotion
There is a problem with the Education Queensland promotion system. And this problem puts classroom teachers at risk of workplace abuse.
Principals seem to be being selected largely on the basis of their glib oral skills - their ability to "spin" the facts. And there is a very fine line between being a good "spinner" and being a brazen, abusive liar.
I have no way of knowing if the abuse that I suffered was the result of limited intelligence, mental dysfunction or poor training.
But I do know that in November 2000 I had the overwhelming feeling that I was dealing with profoundly stupid reasoning.
Acting principal GR began the "mediated" meeting on 27 November 2000 by stating:
"... This is not going to get better by changing methods ..."
2421 File F Lynch-Mob State School document 32 - number at top right hand side of page.
Notes made by acting deputy principal AL.
So there was nothing that I could actually do that would prove my innocence of the "lots of" mystery allegations.
"... it's about fundamental beliefs."
So, to prove myself innocent of acting principal GR's mystery allegations, GR was demanding that I change her beliefs about my own "fundamental beliefs".
Which was clearly going to be rather difficult because GR had always refused to listen to me:
On 10 November 2000, GR told the staff that there was "a person" on the staff who humiliated children.
The next day a teacher warned me that "the person" was me, and that GR believed that I had told a child to "put her nose against the wall".
On 20 November 2000, I gave GR a letter to explain that this had not happened.
The child had never been anywhere near a wall.
I asked for a meeting with the School Behaviour Management Committee.
But
On 27 November 2000, knowing that I had not told the child to face the wall, GR stated:
"It's not OK to have students face the wall."
When I said again that this had never happened, acting deputy principal AL did not record my actual words.
She described my response to the allegation as arguing:
"Annie started to argue ... "
And acting principal GR refused to listen to me:
"GR said let's not get into I did or didn't do this or that."
So the facts did not matter.
"This is about how you treat children not individual issues."
So, again, the facts did not matter.
"Annie again began to argue the point.
Acting principal GR said, "it's not about academically arguing each point."
Again, my actual response to GR's allegations is edited out of acting deputy principal AL's notes.
GR said, "it's not about academically arguing each point."
" ... you can't argue your way out of it."
And my response to GR's incorrect allegations is repeatedly dismissed as "arguing".
The fact is that the child had been sitting on the carpet in the middle of the room, watching other children acting in an Indonesian play. She was calling out and disturbing them. I told her to turn around and face the back wall so that she would stop distubing the class.
The child was never anywhere near the wall.
The problem was inside GR's head.
And that was why I could not prove myself innocent.
There is a need to select administrators who have better thinking and reasoning skills.
Or to provide appropriate support and training for principals who have poor reasoning skills.
The concept of "Natural Justice".
There is systemic abuse / misuse of the concept of "natural justice".
The concept needs to be re-thought.
1) When I followed the School Behaviour Management Program and sent children to acting deputy principal AL for poor behaviour, AL allowed the children "natural Justice" - they were allowed to make untruthful allegations against me.
And the children's untruthful allegations were secretly placed on my "official records".
But I was not allowed "Natural Justice" - the opportunity to respond to the children's allegations.
2) During the meeting on 27 November 2000, my responses to acting principal GR's allegations were not recorded.
And GR repeatedly refused to listen to my responses.
And GR made no mention of the allegations in the "notes to Leigh from Desley".
And she did not show me the "lot of allegations" or the "lots of pieces of paper to prove how things may have happened."
I was not allowed Natural justice.
3) Acting principal GR, acting deputy principal AL and usual principal EL did not show me these allegations before-
a) agreeing together on 29 November 2000 that "the (DWP) process is warranted" and
b) asking me to a formal meeting and
c) giving me a formal letter to advise me that I would be in the DWP process in 2001.
I was not allowed Natural Justice.
4) Usual principal EL did not show me the documents before dismissing my Stage 1 Grievance about the abuse of the DWP process.
I was not allowed Natural Justice.
5) The Education Queensland "internal reviewer" copied from the falsified documents on my file, but decided not to "consider" my responses to the falsified documents.
I was not allowed Natural Justice.
6) The Verifact Investigator was instructed to record a new version of the "departmental story" and to record new allegations against me.
This "report" was accepted by the CMC one and a half years before I was allowed to read even a limited version of the report.
I have never been allowed Natural Justice.
Conflict of Interest issues.
District Office staff, senior officers and FOI officers need to be trained to recognise "grooming" strategies and to resist being groomed.
Senior officers who are asked to conduct Grievance investigations or to write "Briefings for the Minister" should be required to declare any conflict of interest in the situation.
Acting principal GR sems to have extensively "groomed" senior officers by appealing to them for "advice" on how to deal with her imaginary version of my conduct.
This "grooming" process seems to have made these senior officers feel responsible for GR's abuse of the DWP.
GR's own secret 'records" reveal that she had "groomed" three senior officers in the District Office into "advising" her, or into participating in her abuse of the DWP.
The District Director revealed to Officers of the Information Commission in 2004 that he had also been "groomed" by GR during late 2000.
So, when-
a) Usual principal EL conducted his "Stage 1 Grievance Investigation" in January 2001,
b) and when the District Director assured me that he had the bullying under control in July 2002,
c) and when Dictrict Office Employee CHR wrote her "Briefing for the Minister" in August 2003,
- they all had a conflict of interest because they had all been groomed into feeling responsible for the advice that they had given GR.
"Acting" principals must be expected to know Education Queensland policies, or they must be directed to the policies.
And they must be expected to make the effort to read the policies themselves and to take responsibility for their own actions.
Because, when senior officers are 'groomed" by abusive principals seeking "advice" on policies, the Grievance system is corrupted.
Principals should be clearly instructed that it is not acceptable professional conduct to spend lunchtimes repeatedly pressuring other members of staff to join their own branch of a political party.
Their attention needs to be drawn to the potential conflict of interest issues raised by this behaviour.
Classroom teachers need to be protected from this abuse of a principal's position.
There is a need for inexperienced administrators to be monitored, and for alarm bells to ring loudly when there are signs that an inexperienced administrator may be abusing a classroom teacher.
Acting principal GR claims that she first discussed putting me on DWP with District Office staff on the sixth day that she was acting principal.
If this really happened, it was a clear signal that acting principal GR was struggling in her role.
Alarms should have rung out in the District Office.
Immediate action should have been taken to ensure that I was protected from workplace abuse.
Reporting Mental Health Concerns.
There is a need to develop a proper process by which a classroom teacher can report a concern about the mental health of a school principal.
The lack of any such process exposes teachers and students to the risk of abuse.
I reported to usual principal EL on 25 January 2001 that acting principal GR's menacing behaviour during the "mediated" meeting on 27 November 2000 suggested to me that she had a "mental or emotional" problem.
He seems to have done nothing.
I emailed a letter to Ken Smith on 21 June 2004 at 12:35 PM in which I stated that the extensive falsification of my "official records" suggested to me that acting principal GR had some sort of significant mental health problem.
I copied this letter to the CMC, the Ombudsman and MailBox@justice.qld.gov.au
The next day, 22 June 2004, I handed a printed copy of this letter in at the District Office.
I understand that all copies of this letter were simply "lost".
Mediation
Principals must not be allowed to abuse their power to refuse mediation.
Teachers must be protected from "payback" for asking for mediation.
I had asked for a meeting with the School Behaviour Management Committee.
And I had asked for a mediated meeting with acting principal GR.
There was at least one person on that School Behaviour Management Committee who knew exactly what acting principal GR had said about me to the staff.
That was why GR would not allow me to meet the committee.
That was why she refused mediation.
That was why the "mediated" meeting had to be changed to a meeting for the purpose of putting me on DWP.
That was why GR would not allow usual principal EL to speak to the seven teachers who had seen me teach for periods of up to two years, and who all fully supported me.
Abuse of Education Queensland Aboriginal employees.
A junior Aboriginal employee with no qualifications in education, law or psychology was given the task of "internally reviewing" my January 2004 CMC complaint.
The fact that he was an Education Queensland employee was concealed from the CMC till October 18, 2004.
I told the CMC myself.
The CMC officer that I told was quite aggressive in her disbelief.
If I had not told the CMC that the Education Queensland "review" of my complaint was being conducted by a junior Education Queensland employee, would they ever have found out?
This Aboriginal employee came from a primarily oral culture.
But I was not allowed to speak to him.
The fact that he was Aboriginal was concealed from me.
He decided / was instructed to copy from the falsified documents that had been secretly placed on my file.
He decided / was instructed not to "consider" my responses to the falsified dcouments.
I consider that this was abuse, both of me and of the Aboriginal employee.
I was brought up in England.
I have a totally different cultural and language background to this Aboriginal employee.
I was brought up in a culture where "a man is as good as his word" and children are taught to "tell the truth and shame the devil".
I was not brought up to expect my government to be corrupt.
But Australian school children are being taught that it is OK to lie about their behaviour.
And not to "rock the boat".
And Aboriginal Australians have been horribly abused for generations.
I now realise that Australians, and Aboriginal Australians in particular, expect their government to be corrupt.
I discuss this in more detail on my website at:
http://www.badapplebullies.com/discrimination.htm
Investigations
It must become possible for a Queensland teacher to prove themselves innocent of an allegation.
On 27 November 2000, the first advice to me from the QTU organiser was that there was no hope of justice and to "accept the things you cannot change".
He told me that he had never known a teacher's grievance to be upheld and that teachers who "fought it" were mentally and physically broken.
Other QTU organisers have suggested to me that this was good advice.
My own experience suggests that, even if it is radiantly obvious from the first moment that the teacher is being abused, there is no hope of justice.
Because-
Education Queensland documentation is so appallingly unprofessional that it is impossible to find out what is really "going on".
The allegations are so vague that the teacher cannot respond effectively.
If a teacher does manage to respond effectively to an allegation, the allegation is changed.
Education Queensland senior officers deal with complaints by continually "losing" them.
Decisions are based on "Reports" and "Briefings" writen by Officers who have a conflict of interest in the situation.
Investigations are delayed for years so that the abusers can claim to have "forgotten" their abuse.
Investigators do not investigate a teacher's complaint.They side-step the teacher's complaint. They investigate a new complaint that is chosen by the senior officers who were themselves involved in the abuse. Then they find no evidence to support their own complaint.
CMC officers do not read a complainant's complaint. They simply copy out the advice given to them by Education Queensland officers who have a conflict of interest in the situation.
This abuse of Queensland teachers is systemic.
And it must stop.
Mr Needham, the Queensland government has a responsibility to protect Queensland teachers from this sort of systemic corruption.
Details of the huge mass of falsified documents that I discovered on my Education Queensland "official records" can be found at:
http://www.badapplebullies.com/thefalsifiedrecords.htm
Recent Comments